Would the fact that the Nikon D3X only shoots at 1.8-2FPS in 14 bit mode and that shutter lag increases from 40 to 60 msec in 14 bit mode be of importance in your dicision to buy one or the other. Price difference obviously not taken in consideration.
The fact that I have Canon lenses and the 5D2 is $5000 cheaper would be of importance. Now, if I were choosing between the 1DsIII and the D3X without owning any lenses from either company, it might be of importance to me. Why not compare the two flagships? Why compare the D3X to the 5D2...they're in very different market segments. The D3x competes directly with the 1DsIII.
"Like the D3, the frame rate of the D3X stays constant when the 14 bit option is selected, up to 5 fps in the case of the new model. To achieve a 7 fps maximum shooting rate in DX Format mode, the camera utilizes 12 bits per colour conversions."
"Like the D3, the frame rate of the D3X stays constant when the 14 bit option is selected, up to 5 fps in the case of the new model. To achieve a 7 fps maximum shooting rate in DX Format mode, the camera utilizes 12 bits per colour conversions."
BrianP wrote:
I can't find the information that you state on the Nikon site. If this is true, then yes, this would play a real part of my decision.
They state the FPS and then qualify it with an asterix-in very small print-at the bottom of the paragraph-at 12 bits. According to the info on the FM Nikon link the info is available in Japanese-I could not access that specific link.
If it is true-it sucks if misleading info is presented by reputable companies!
"9-frames-per-second shooting rate in FX format (D3)
5-frames-per-second shooting rate in FX format (D3X)
In many fields of photography, reflexes and timing can make or break a career. That’s why Nikon’s engineers set out to radically improve speed, response time and recording time for the D3 and D3X.
Indeed, these cameras mark an incredible breakthrough. The D3 gives you options to master any shooting situation: 9 frames per second in FX format (12.1 megapixels) and up to 11 fps in DX crop mode (5.1 megapixels). The D3X, with its 24.5 megapixels, gives extreme-resolution photographers the chance to shoot up to 5 fps* in FX format and 7 fps* in DX crop mode (10.5 megapixels).
In DX crop mode, shooting rates of up to 11 fps (D3) and 7 fps* (D3X) increase your opportunities of nailing the precise moment you need. For situations that require full resolution, photographers can shoot in FX-format — 9 fps with the D3 and 5 fps* with the D3X — and rely on full AF and AE performance. The FX-format empowers you and your editors to crop winning shots as necessary and still be able to enlarge them into commercial-quality prints.
And because the D3 and D3X support next-generation UDMA technology, recording speed gets an extra boost, enabling you to shoot more consecutive shots — pivotal to many professional assignments.
So yes, looks like the D3X can't manage 5fps in 14 bit mode.
Big deal? Yeah. If I was going to get one, I need a camera that can do it all at max quality. I don't want to compromise DR if shooting at 5fps - especially with their suggested price tag!
For any body other than real entry level, anything like this is a bit of a deal breaker.
For a Pro grade camera to get so hamstrung that you can only shoot at less than 2fps because you want to shoot in the full 14bits offered and use all of the sensor is pretty dam poor.
Caleb Williams wrote:
RafalA, you beat me to it...
I didn't see anything about 2fps...
Basically, they don't show any numbers in 14 bit mode. All the figures are the maximums shown for 12 bit, which reinforces the other reports that the camera is slower in 14 bit.
I don't get it. Memory is so cheap these days - you can pick up 8GB for a Mac Pro for $300 - that I don't understand why cameras, especially the pro-level ones, don't have virtually unlimited buffers.
What's the problem? Shoot in 12 bit if you want a fast frame rate. The D3x is still a better camera than the 5D II in all ways except for image quality, and will likely be worse at higher ISOs than the 5D II. That doesn't mean it sucks.
Look at it as a high-resolution D3 with a handicap at higher ISOs, or a 1Ds Mark III competitor that's worse at higher ISOs, whatever. The D3x really isn't comparable to the 5D II.
Buy the 5D II if you:
want to save money
need better high ISO performance
don't need better AF than the 5D has
don't need better build quality
like the smaller form factor
shoot Canon
Buy the D3x if you:
don't need as high quality at higher ISOs
need better AF by far than the 5D
need a far better frame rate than the 5D
need better build quality
like the larger form factor
shoot Nikon
It is well-known that 14 bits don't offer much (zero demonstrable advantage) over 12 bit. IMO all modern 14-bit cameras should offer a 12-bit option to save file size and increase frame rate. I am sure Canon has not offered this on the 5D II as a further way of differentiating it from the 1 series, in addition to using a lower-spec AF system.
If you like, a more proper question is not why the D3x's frame rate is hobbled (it is clearly not) but why the 5D II doesn't offer a 12-bit mode with a faster frame rate.
Sanlameer wrote:
Would the fact that the Nikon D3X only shoots at 1.8-2FPS in 14 bit mode and that shutter lag increases from 40 to 60 msec in 14 bit mode be of importance in your dicision to buy one or the other. Price difference obviously not taken in consideration.
1. so far 14bit mode has done nothing on any of the cameras, so does it matter?
2. even 60ms lag is still something like only half that of the 5DMk2
skibum5 wrote:
2. even 60ms lag is still something like only half that of the 5DMk2
40D/50D has a shutter lag of 59ms according to official Canon white paper. I highly doubt 5DII would be any worse. So that puts the revolutionary 8000$ Nikon beast to a level of amateur cameras (as many nikonians tend to label XXD series).
milanissimo wrote:
40D/50D has a shutter lag of 59ms according to official Canon white paper. I highly doubt 5DII would be any worse. So that puts the revolutionary 8000$ Nikon beast to a level of amateur cameras (as many nikonians tend to label XXD series).
jvarszegi wrote:
What's the problem? Shoot in 12 bit if you want a fast frame rate. The D3x is still a better camera than the 5D II in all ways except for image quality, and will likely be worse at higher ISOs than the 5D II. That doesn't mean it sucks.
Look at it as a high-resolution D3 with a handicap at higher ISOs, or a 1Ds Mark III competitor that's worse at higher ISOs, whatever. The D3x really isn't comparable to the 5D II.
Buy the 5D II if you:
want to save money
need better high ISO performance
don't need better AF than the 5D has
don't need better build quality
like the smaller form factor
shoot Canon
Buy the D3x if you:
don't need as high quality at higher ISOs
need better AF by far than the 5D
need a far better frame rate than the 5D
need better build quality
like the larger form factor
shoot Nikon
It is well-known that 14 bits don't offer much (zero demonstrable advantage) over 12 bit. IMO all modern 14-bit cameras should offer a 12-bit option to save file size and increase frame rate. I am sure Canon has not offered this on the 5D II as a further way of differentiating it from the 1 series, in addition to using a lower-spec AF system.
If you like, a more proper question is not why the D3x's frame rate is hobbled (it is clearly not) but why the 5D II doesn't offer a 12-bit mode with a faster frame rate....Show more →
I would like to change a lot of reasons that someone could buy a 5DMarkII
Buy the 5D II if you:
want to save money in a big factor
need better high ISO performance
don't need better AF than the 5D has
don't need 1D build quality but need somthing better than 5D
like to use it a HD 1080p camera
like the smaller form factor
like the performance of the camera at 14bit
shoot Canon
jvarszegi wrote:
What's the problem? Shoot in 12 bit if you want a fast frame rate. The D3x is still a better camera than the 5D II in all ways except for image quality, and will likely be worse at higher ISOs than the 5D II. That doesn't mean it sucks.
Look at it as a high-resolution D3 with a handicap at higher ISOs, or a 1Ds Mark III competitor that's worse at higher ISOs, whatever. The D3x really isn't comparable to the 5D II.
Buy the 5D II if you:
want to save money
need better high ISO performance
don't need better AF than the 5D has
don't need better build quality
like the smaller form factor
shoot Canon
Buy the D3x if you:
don't need as high quality at higher ISOs
need better AF by far than the 5D
need a far better frame rate than the 5D
need better build quality
like the larger form factor
shoot Nikon
It is well-known that 14 bits don't offer much (zero demonstrable advantage) over 12 bit. IMO all modern 14-bit cameras should offer a 12-bit option to save file size and increase frame rate. I am sure Canon has not offered this on the 5D II as a further way of differentiating it from the 1 series, in addition to using a lower-spec AF system.
If you like, a more proper question is not why the D3x's frame rate is hobbled (it is clearly not) but why the 5D II doesn't offer a 12-bit mode with a faster frame rate....Show more →
Why compare the D3X against the 5Dm2. just because they are the most recent?
The d3x is a top line pro cam with a price tag to match. The 5d2 is a Top Line prosumer cam priced much lower. If you want to compare the D3x to any Canon then its going to be the 1ds3. If the 5d2 is to be compared to anything then it would be a d700X (oh that does not exist yet) or the A900 (its in the same price ball park)
As for the D3x I cant believe after the success or the d300/d3/d700 and the way they have given Canon some real competition thet Nikon have dropped the ball on something so simple to get right. Does the 1ds3 slow down this much when you use its full capacity? If it did then it would have been all over forums like this.
)